Fitness and weight loss - why can't anyone agree? (1 Viewer)

[FreeBaGeL]

How realistic is it that people only eat chicken and steamed, non-starchy vegetables? Even anti-carb people are normally eating calorie dense nuts and oils. I don't see how this point helps anyone. Particularly when the alternative strategy being debated is counting calories.

No less realistic than someone only eating Snickers bars.

What it is is irrelevant, it was just a quick way to group "healthy" and "unhealthy" food. The point is, 5000 calories of healthy food will make you gain weight. 1500 calories of unhealthy food will make you lose weight.

Obviously there are other health issues involved if you're talking about just eating a bunch of junk, but the notion that you can take in infinite calories without gaining weight as long as they're "healthy" calories is wrong. As is the notion that you can't lose weight if you're eating junk as long as you're not taking in too many calories worth of that junk.

Eating a slice of cheesecake isn't more likely to make you gain weight because it doesn't have enough protein. It's more likely to make you gain weight because taking in 600 calories in 2 minutes that doesn't even fill you up at all is going to make it a lot harder to not exceed your calorie goal for the day.

 

[moleculo]

How realistic is it that people only eat chicken and steamed, non-starchy vegetables? Even anti-carb people are normally eating calorie dense nuts and oils. I don't see how this point helps anyone. Particularly when the alternative strategy being debated is counting calories.

No less realistic than someone only eating Snickers bars.

What it is is irrelevant, it was just a quick way to group "healthy" and "unhealthy" food. The point is, 5000 calories of healthy food will make you gain weight. 1500 calories of unhealthy food will make you lose weight.

Obviously there are other health issues involved if you're talking about just eating a bunch of junk, but the notion that you can take in infinite calories without gaining weight as long as they're "healthy" calories is wrong. As is the notion that you can't lose weight if you're eating junk as long as you're not taking in too many calories worth of that junk.

Eating a slice of cheesecake isn't more likely to make you gain weight because it doesn't have enough protein. It's more likely to make you gain weight because taking in 600 calories in 2 minutes that doesn't even fill you up at all is going to make it a lot harder to not exceed your calorie goal for the day.

I never said infinite calories of healthy food, I said you can eat as much as you want. There is an upper limit on how much food a reasonable person would want, and it falls well short of 5000 calories.

 

[culdeus]

How realistic is it that people only eat chicken and steamed, non-starchy vegetables? Even anti-carb people are normally eating calorie dense nuts and oils. I don't see how this point helps anyone. Particularly when the alternative strategy being debated is counting calories.

No less realistic than someone only eating Snickers bars.

What it is is irrelevant, it was just a quick way to group "healthy" and "unhealthy" food. The point is, 5000 calories of healthy food will make you gain weight. 1500 calories of unhealthy food will make you lose weight.

Obviously there are other health issues involved if you're talking about just eating a bunch of junk, but the notion that you can take in infinite calories without gaining weight as long as they're "healthy" calories is wrong. As is the notion that you can't lose weight if you're eating junk as long as you're not taking in too many calories worth of that junk.

Eating a slice of cheesecake isn't more likely to make you gain weight because it doesn't have enough protein. It's more likely to make you gain weight because taking in 600 calories in 2 minutes that doesn't even fill you up at all is going to make it a lot harder to not exceed your calorie goal for the day.

You are going to die on this hill aren't you?

 

[TripItUp]

Eat the right food with the right portions and exercise regularly.

Right food = natural, unprocessed foods. Fruits, vegetables, nuts, meat etc.

People making it out to be rocket science are trying to sell you something.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

How realistic is it that people only eat chicken and steamed, non-starchy vegetables? Even anti-carb people are normally eating calorie dense nuts and oils. I don't see how this point helps anyone. Particularly when the alternative strategy being debated is counting calories.

No less realistic than someone only eating Snickers bars.

What it is is irrelevant, it was just a quick way to group "healthy" and "unhealthy" food. The point is, 5000 calories of healthy food will make you gain weight. 1500 calories of unhealthy food will make you lose weight.

Obviously there are other health issues involved if you're talking about just eating a bunch of junk, but the notion that you can take in infinite calories without gaining weight as long as they're "healthy" calories is wrong. As is the notion that you can't lose weight if you're eating junk as long as you're not taking in too many calories worth of that junk.

Eating a slice of cheesecake isn't more likely to make you gain weight because it doesn't have enough protein. It's more likely to make you gain weight because taking in 600 calories in 2 minutes that doesn't even fill you up at all is going to make it a lot harder to not exceed your calorie goal for the day.

I never said infinite calories of healthy food, I said you can eat as much as you want. There is an upper limit on how much food a reasonable person would want, and it falls well short of 5000 calories.

Even if it's only 2800 calories and your metabolism + output amounts to 2300 calories then you are going to gain weight.

If you want to argue that it's harder to over-eat on calories with healthy food then I'm right there with you. But you specifically said otherwise in your original post. You will lose more weight eating 1750 calories worth of snickers bars than 2500 calories worth of chicken. You'll feel like #### and likely have other health issues, but in terms of weight loss/gain it really is as simple as calories in vs. calories spent.

 

[moleculo]

How realistic is it that people only eat chicken and steamed, non-starchy vegetables? Even anti-carb people are normally eating calorie dense nuts and oils. I don't see how this point helps anyone. Particularly when the alternative strategy being debated is counting calories.

No less realistic than someone only eating Snickers bars.

What it is is irrelevant, it was just a quick way to group "healthy" and "unhealthy" food. The point is, 5000 calories of healthy food will make you gain weight. 1500 calories of unhealthy food will make you lose weight.

Obviously there are other health issues involved if you're talking about just eating a bunch of junk, but the notion that you can take in infinite calories without gaining weight as long as they're "healthy" calories is wrong. As is the notion that you can't lose weight if you're eating junk as long as you're not taking in too many calories worth of that junk.

Eating a slice of cheesecake isn't more likely to make you gain weight because it doesn't have enough protein. It's more likely to make you gain weight because taking in 600 calories in 2 minutes that doesn't even fill you up at all is going to make it a lot harder to not exceed your calorie goal for the day.

I never said infinite calories of healthy food, I said you can eat as much as you want. There is an upper limit on how much food a reasonable person would want, and it falls well short of 5000 calories.

Even if it's only 2800 calories and your metabolism + output amounts to 2300 calories then you are going to gain weight.

maybe your metabolism adapts. Maybe your body finds that eating that many calories without burning them off isn't sustainable, and you naturally pare back via decreased appetite.

I'm not talking about day-to-day, week-to-week, or month-to-month changes here. I'm talking about year-to-year changes. is a 500 calorie surplus per day diet going to effect your weight long term? maybe, but if you aren't working out, you may find it difficult to sustain 2800 calories per day of healthy food.

Conversely, I'm quite certain the 7 snickers bar per day guy will break his diet and binge. I've done it. Anyone who has been on a restrictive caloric diet has done it. It's why diets don't work.

 

[FUBAR]

How realistic is it that people only eat chicken and steamed, non-starchy vegetables? Even anti-carb people are normally eating calorie dense nuts and oils. I don't see how this point helps anyone. Particularly when the alternative strategy being debated is counting calories.

No less realistic than someone only eating Snickers bars.

What it is is irrelevant, it was just a quick way to group "healthy" and "unhealthy" food. The point is, 5000 calories of healthy food will make you gain weight. 1500 calories of unhealthy food will make you lose weight.

Obviously there are other health issues involved if you're talking about just eating a bunch of junk, but the notion that you can take in infinite calories without gaining weight as long as they're "healthy" calories is wrong. As is the notion that you can't lose weight if you're eating junk as long as you're not taking in too many calories worth of that junk.

Eating a slice of cheesecake isn't more likely to make you gain weight because it doesn't have enough protein. It's more likely to make you gain weight because taking in 600 calories in 2 minutes that doesn't even fill you up at all is going to make it a lot harder to not exceed your calorie goal for the day.

I never said infinite calories of healthy food, I said you can eat as much as you want. There is an upper limit on how much food a reasonable person would want, and it falls well short of 5000 calories.

Even if it's only 2800 calories and your metabolism + output amounts to 2300 calories then you are going to gain weight.

If you want to argue that it's harder to over-eat on calories with healthy food then I'm right there with you. But you specifically said otherwise in your original post. You will lose more weight eating 1750 calories worth of snickers bars than 2500 calories worth of chicken. You'll feel like #### and likely have other health issues, but in terms of weight loss/gain it really is as simple as calories in vs. calories spent.

You're going to feel like #### eating only one specific type of food regardless what that food is.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

How realistic is it that people only eat chicken and steamed, non-starchy vegetables? Even anti-carb people are normally eating calorie dense nuts and oils. I don't see how this point helps anyone. Particularly when the alternative strategy being debated is counting calories.

No less realistic than someone only eating Snickers bars.

What it is is irrelevant, it was just a quick way to group "healthy" and "unhealthy" food. The point is, 5000 calories of healthy food will make you gain weight. 1500 calories of unhealthy food will make you lose weight.

Obviously there are other health issues involved if you're talking about just eating a bunch of junk, but the notion that you can take in infinite calories without gaining weight as long as they're "healthy" calories is wrong. As is the notion that you can't lose weight if you're eating junk as long as you're not taking in too many calories worth of that junk.

Eating a slice of cheesecake isn't more likely to make you gain weight because it doesn't have enough protein. It's more likely to make you gain weight because taking in 600 calories in 2 minutes that doesn't even fill you up at all is going to make it a lot harder to not exceed your calorie goal for the day.

I never said infinite calories of healthy food, I said you can eat as much as you want. There is an upper limit on how much food a reasonable person would want, and it falls well short of 5000 calories.

Even if it's only 2800 calories and your metabolism + output amounts to 2300 calories then you are going to gain weight.

maybe your metabolism adapts. Maybe your body finds that eating that many calories without burning them off isn't sustainable, and you naturally pare back via decreased appetite.

I'm not talking about day-to-day, week-to-week, or month-to-month changes here. I'm talking about year-to-year changes. is a 500 calorie surplus per day diet going to effect your weight long term? maybe, but if you aren't working out, you may find it difficult to sustain 2800 calories per day of healthy food.

Conversely, I'm quite certain the 7 snickers bar per day guy will break his diet and binge. I've done it. Anyone who has been on a restrictive caloric diet has done it. It's why diets don't work.

I'm in agreement with all of that and have said basically the same. But that is very much NOT what you originally said, and is basically the exact thing that I've been arguing all along.

 

[No. 16]

Moleculo... Just for my sanity.

Do you believe if you consume more calories than you expend you will gain weight and that if you consume less calories than you expend you will lose weight?

I've honestly forget/don't know what you believe.

 

[moleculo]

Moleculo... Just for my sanity.

Do you believe if you consume more calories than you expend you will gain weight and that if you consume less calories than you expend you will lose weight?

I've honestly forget/don't know what you believe.

I believe that is a gross oversimplification. Further, it is dangerous because it allows people to believe they can make poor food choices as long as they maintain portion control. I believe this is a great recipe for short term weight loss but not long term. People binge, they fall off of the wagon.

I believe diets fail because people believe they can get away with counting calories without making long-term lifestyle changes.

 

[moleculo]

How realistic is it that people only eat chicken and steamed, non-starchy vegetables? Even anti-carb people are normally eating calorie dense nuts and oils. I don't see how this point helps anyone. Particularly when the alternative strategy being debated is counting calories.

No less realistic than someone only eating Snickers bars.

What it is is irrelevant, it was just a quick way to group "healthy" and "unhealthy" food. The point is, 5000 calories of healthy food will make you gain weight. 1500 calories of unhealthy food will make you lose weight.

Obviously there are other health issues involved if you're talking about just eating a bunch of junk, but the notion that you can take in infinite calories without gaining weight as long as they're "healthy" calories is wrong. As is the notion that you can't lose weight if you're eating junk as long as you're not taking in too many calories worth of that junk.

Eating a slice of cheesecake isn't more likely to make you gain weight because it doesn't have enough protein. It's more likely to make you gain weight because taking in 600 calories in 2 minutes that doesn't even fill you up at all is going to make it a lot harder to not exceed your calorie goal for the day.

I never said infinite calories of healthy food, I said you can eat as much as you want. There is an upper limit on how much food a reasonable person would want, and it falls well short of 5000 calories.

Even if it's only 2800 calories and your metabolism + output amounts to 2300 calories then you are going to gain weight.

maybe your metabolism adapts. Maybe your body finds that eating that many calories without burning them off isn't sustainable, and you naturally pare back via decreased appetite.

I'm not talking about day-to-day, week-to-week, or month-to-month changes here. I'm talking about year-to-year changes. is a 500 calorie surplus per day diet going to effect your weight long term? maybe, but if you aren't working out, you may find it difficult to sustain 2800 calories per day of healthy food.

Conversely, I'm quite certain the 7 snickers bar per day guy will break his diet and binge. I've done it. Anyone who has been on a restrictive caloric diet has done it. It's why diets don't work.

I'm in agreement with all of that and have said basically the same. But that is very much NOT what you originally said, and is basically the exact thing that I've been arguing all along.

I feel like I've consistently said that if you eat healthy, you can eat as much as you want. The caveat being, there is an upper limit on how much you want. your body self-regulates if you let it. If you eat healthy, you won't want to consume more than you typically exert.

When i said sustain above, I meant appetite. If you exert 2300 cal. per day, you won't have an appetite to eat 2800 calories of healthy food every day indefinitely. It's not sustainable because you won't want to eat that much.

 

[James Daulton]

Do you consider nuts healthy? Because you can pile up the calories quickly eating lots of nuts.

 

[Keerock]

Do you consider nuts healthy? Because you can pile up the calories quickly eating lots of nuts.

There are a lot of redeeming factors with nuts. Good taste. Good source of dietary fat, magnesium and sodium. Decent source of protein.

tl;dr - yes.

 

[moleculo]

Do you consider nuts healthy? Because you can pile up the calories quickly eating lots of nuts.

my understanding is they are a grey area. They are ok in moderation.

Truth be told, I'm not a dietitian. There are plenty of much smarter folks on this board than me, I'm just bolivating on my opinions, based on what has worked for me. I tried counting calories, I've binge-starved, nothing worked long term. I went paleo, read a book or two on the subject, and the weight dripped off with seemingly no effort.

A friend of mine does seminars on the subject. I've seen the transformation in her, that's what got my wife and I to commit. Her program is what got us away from counting calories. I don't remember if she mentioned calories at all in her stuff - it was more about maintaining a ratio of protein, veggies, and healthy fats in every meal, while cutting out artificial sweeteners. What was astounding to me was how much I could eat while on the program, how full I was after every meal, how the weight dropped off, and how great I felt.

 

[shader]

Do you consider nuts healthy? Because you can pile up the calories quickly eating lots of nuts.

my understanding is they are a grey area. They are ok in moderation.

Truth be told, I'm not a dietitian. There are plenty of much smarter folks on this board than me, I'm just bolivating on my opinions, based on what has worked for me. I tried counting calories, I've binge-starved, nothing worked long term. I went paleo, read a book or two on the subject, and the weight dripped off with seemingly no effort.

A friend of mine does seminars on the subject. I've seen the transformation in her, that's what got my wife and I to commit. Her program is what got us away from counting calories. I don't remember if she mentioned calories at all in her stuff - it was more about maintaining a ratio of protein, veggies, and healthy fats in every meal, while cutting out artificial sweeteners. What was astounding to me was how much I could eat while on the program, how full I was after every meal, how the weight dropped off, and how great I felt.

The one thing I've noticed about most diet plans is the fact that almost all of them tend to have added "rules" that probably aren't necessary. For instance, doing all the above things, maintaining proper ratios of proteins, veggies and healthy fats, are likely going to cause amazing transformations, whether or not the artificial sweeteners are cut out or not.

 

[FUBAR]

Do you consider nuts healthy? Because you can pile up the calories quickly eating lots of nuts.

my understanding is they are a grey area. They are ok in moderation.

Truth be told, I'm not a dietitian. There are plenty of much smarter folks on this board than me, I'm just bolivating on my opinions, based on what has worked for me. I tried counting calories, I've binge-starved, nothing worked long term. I went paleo, read a book or two on the subject, and the weight dripped off with seemingly no effort.

A friend of mine does seminars on the subject. I've seen the transformation in her, that's what got my wife and I to commit. Her program is what got us away from counting calories. I don't remember if she mentioned calories at all in her stuff - it was more about maintaining a ratio of protein, veggies, and healthy fats in every meal, while cutting out artificial sweeteners. What was astounding to me was how much I could eat while on the program, how full I was after every meal, how the weight dropped off, and how great I felt.

to the bold. Also it's helpful if you get 5 colors every day: http://www.livestrong.com/article/216311-the-five-color-diet/

 

[No. 16]

Moleculo... Just for my sanity.

Do you believe if you consume more calories than you expend you will gain weight and that if you consume less calories than you expend you will lose weight?

I've honestly forget/don't know what you believe.

I believe that is a gross oversimplification. Further, it is dangerous because it allows people to believe they can make poor food choices as long as they maintain portion control. I believe this is a great recipe for short term weight loss but not long term. People binge, they fall off of the wagon. I believe diets fail because people believe they can get away with counting calories without making long-term lifestyle changes.

It was a yes or no question. However, I see that you do agree with that over simplification. That's enough for me to bow out of this conversation.

Everything else in your reply is pretty much your opinion of the best METHOD to lose and maintain weight. However, it doesn't change human physiology.

 

[Sabertooth]

IIFYM is an interesting site dealing with Macros. If It Fits Your Macros is the crux of it.

I tend to think America in general is just totally over carbed. Carbs are everywhere. Every snack outside of beef jerky is just a carb bomb it seems. I think there is some truth to the USDA pushing special interest wheat and dairy. They basically have the food pyramid upside down.

If most people could just cut out the wheat, they'd be much better off. But they can't/won't.

 

[Rick James]

yeah, I try to limit carbs to 100g per day. that's more than most low-carbers but it's sufficiently less than the standard 400g recommendation that I grew up with.

 

[Sabertooth]

That's perfectly reasonable.